dePression, ANxiety, and acaDEMIC Performance in COVID-19: Pandemic. A Cross-sectional Study. (preprint)

Depression and anxiety are common after months of social isolation, and they can have a negative impact on anyone's quality of life if they are not treated promptly and appropriately. The purpose of this study was to determine whether undergraduate and graduate students preferred classroom or online classes and to determine whether the existence of sadness or anxiety connected to the COVID-19 pandemic changed their view of their academic achievement. A cross-sectional design was used in this investigation. To determine the presence of mental health disorders in undergraduate and graduate students, we employed the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) depression screening scale and the General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) anxiety screening scale. We examined whether these diseases changed students' perceptions of their academic success using the Academic Self-Concept Scale (ASCS). 610 students responded to the survey. When questioned about their preferred class type, 581 students (95.2 percent) said that they preferred classroom classes. The average score on the Academic Self-Concept Scale was 2.760.35. PHQ-9 mean scores were 11.946.90, while GAD-7 mean scores were 10.305.66. The intensity of depression and anxiety had a significant effect on Academic Self-Concept Scale scores (p0.001 and p0.05, respectively). The findings indicate that students in a typical circumstance do not face difficulty transitioning from classroom-based instruction to online delivery.

Postpartum depression and breastfeeding practices during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in Mexican mothers: a cross-sectional study (preprint)

BackgroundThe incidence of mental disorders during major events is higher in prenatal and postnatal women than in the general population. The COVID-19 pandemic, subsequent lockdown, and social distancing may have caused changes in newborn mothers’ mental health, postpartum depression (PPD), and breastfeeding practices. There is no information about this topic in Mexican mothers who have delivered newborns during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. The objective of this study was to explore whether quarantine measures, social distancing, and hospital containment policies altered the incidence rates of PPD, breastfeeding adherence, and skin-to-skin contact (SSC) in women giving birth during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis cross-sectional study included women who delivered a healthy baby at term in February to July 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants completed an anonymous online survey incorporating the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.ResultsA total of 211 participants were included; their mean age was 30.5 ± 4.6 years and the gestational age at the time of delivery was 38.3 ± 2.0 weeks. Sixty (28.4%) participants reported PPD, and 196 (92.9%) reported breastfeeding their baby during COVID-19. Mothers with PPD had lower levels of exclusive breastfeeding (P = 0.66) and breastfeeding with formula (P = 0.29). Only 23 participants (10.9%) stopped breastfeeding because of issues with latching (30.4%). SSC was reported by 63% of participants and was more frequent immediately after birth (46%). Mothers with PPD reported less frequent SSC (P = 0.001) and later initiation of SSC (P = 0.001) after childbirth. Mothers who initiated SSC used exclusive breastfeeding more frequently during the first 48 h after birth (P = 0.004).ConclusionsWe found a higher prevalence of PPD in new mothers during the pandemic. Mothers reporting PPD were less likely to initiate SSC after birth. These findings suggest that the pandemic and the measures adopted to fight its spread may have harmed maternal well-being during pregnancy and after delivery. Women giving birth during the COVID-19 pandemic represent a vulnerable population that may need focused health care. SSC is a simple, cost-effective intervention that may help reduce the incidence of PPD.Trial registrationThis cross-sectional study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04769700).

dePression, ANxiety, and acaDEMImiC performance in COVID- 19: The PANDEMIC study: A cross-sectional survey study (preprint)

Background: After almost nine months of social isolation, the high incidence of depression and anxiety is understandable. However, depression and anxiety can adversely affect the quality of life. One of the biggest challenges in this global pandemic is providing education within public and private academic institutes. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional survey distributed online from April to June 2020. We used the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 depression screening scale and the General Anxiety Disorder-7 screening scale to identify the presence of mental health disorders such as depression or anxiety in undergraduate and graduate students. We used the Academic Self-Concept Scale to determine whether these disorders altered students' perception of their academic performance. Results: A total of 610 students answered the survey: 386 female (63.3%) and 224 male (36.7%). Most students (71.5%) had not participated in online courses before. When asked about their class preferences, 581 students (95.2%) preferred to be taught in classes. The average Academic Self-Concept Scale score was 2.76 ± 0.35. The Academic Self-Concept Scale scores were divided into Confidence and Effort categories, and their respective mean scores were 2.71 ± 0.37 and 2.82 ± 0.45. The total mean Patient Health Questionnarie-9 scores were 11.94 ± 6.90, and the mean General Anxiety Disorder-7 score was 10.30 ± 5.66. There were significant effects of the severity of depression and anxiety on the Academic Self-Concept Scale scores (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05, respectively). Conclusions: The findings suggest that changing from classroom-based teaching to online delivery is not a challenge for students in the normal situation. However, being quarantined can be stressful and frustrating, which may challenge effective learning. Trial registration The study protocol was submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov and registered with the identifier: NCT04420416.

Preventive measures against the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico: A cross-sectional study (preprint)

Background: In December 2019, the World Health Organization announced a new viral pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2, which originated in Wuhan, China. In Mexico, the official announcement regarding the first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case was made on February 29, 2020. Understanding how Mexicans behave during the pandemic could present a complete picture of the pandemic in Mexico while providing better handling of the pandemic. Methods: : This was a cross-sectional survey in which we inquired about the Mexican population's behavior and preventive measures. In total, 4004 subjects from the general population responded to the survey. The survey comprised a questionnaire that included demographic data, housing conditions, daily coexistence with people, use of preventive measures, confidence in the Mexican health-care sector, acceptance of medical procedures, and knowledge of COVID-19. Results: : Participants' mean age was 30 ± 13.7 years, and 43.8% of participants reported at least one comorbidity. Almost 99% of the participants mentioned knowing the symptoms of COVID-19. Moreover, 68.1% of them lived with three to five cohabitants, and 87.4% of them stated that at least one household member had to break social isolation every week. Although 77.5% of participants considered that they followed proper social distancing measures, 60% of them mentioned that they knew at least six individuals who did not follow social distancing measures. Furthermore, 96.2% of participants reported using preventive measures at least 50% of the time. Face masks were used by 99.5% of them, but only 51.3% used a certified mask. Conclusions: : The COVID-19 pandemic outcomes in Mexico are the result of multiple negative factors, such as high rates of comorbidities (e.g., diabetes and hypertension); a high number of people living together at home, with many people breaking social isolation; and most of the population using noncertified preventive measures, which may not have the necessary effectiveness.

Comparison of Fear of COVID-19 in Medical and Nonmedical Personnel in a Public Hospital in Mexico: A Brief Report. (preprint)

The world is social distancing and compulsory confinement has caused stress, psychological instability, stigmatization, fear, and discrimination in the general population. In this cross-sectional survey study, we administered the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) to hospital medical and nonmedical personnel. A total of 1,216 participants were surveyed from May 25 to May 29 of 2020. We asked all the staff for their participation in the study and physical copies of the survey were distributed to the staff willing to participate. All surveys were answered anonymously. We found that the global FCV-19S mean score was 16.4 ± 6.1, with a significant difference between women and men’s scores. Medical students presented higher scores than experienced medical personnel. Additionally, the medical and nursing personnel presented a higher level of fear than hospital staff who did not work directly with COVID-19 patients. Our findings suggest that greater knowledge of medicine or infectious diseases could decrease the overall psychological impact of the pandemic disease.

Fear of COVID-19 Scale for Hospital Staff in Regional Hospitals in Mexico: A Survey Study (preprint)

The presence of COVID-19 has had psychological consequences among health personnel; these include fear, anxiety, and depression. In the current study, we used the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) to assess the response to fear within health staff in Mexico. This was a cross-sectional survey study in which we administered the FCV-19S to hospital staff. A total of 2,860 participants—1,641 female and 1,218 male personnel from three hospitals—were included in the study. We found a global FCV-19S mean score of 19.3 ± 6.9, with a significant difference in scores for women and men. There was a high correlation between items 3, 5, 6, and 7, suggesting that these items could indicate the physiological responses to fear, and a high correlation between items 1, 2, and 4, suggesting these items could represent the emotional responses to fear. Our survey shows a significantly higher level of fear in nursing and administrative personnel, which may be explained by the nursing staff being in close contact with infected patients and the administrative staff lacking understanding of the possible implications of the infection, compared with non-clinical hospital personnel. The FCV-19S showed validity and reliability in our population to assess fear in response to COVID-19. Our results are consistent with those of other researchers.